Talk:Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article seems to have an anti-LAPD slant to it. FunkyChicken! 04:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- This article doesn't tell half the truth about the corruption at the LAPD going on at that time.(Anon user IP 24.205.74.184)
- I'm not the anon IP who wrote the above but I'm not sure I agree this article is anti-LAPD, except insofar as reality is anti-LAPD. The Rampart Scandal was beyond the pale, and Bernard Parks' attempts to brush it under the rug as head of IA was unconscionable; his later attempts as Chief to do something about it amounted to damage limitation from a PR perspective and resistance to any real reform. We used to have thousands of pages of Raphael Perez's testimony online; it was filled with stuff that seemed like it was out of a gang movie. If only 1% of it was true, there were abuses that were way out of line -- cops planting drugs on suspects, cops dealing drugs, planting guns at shooting scenes, etc. Numerous convictions (is "thousands" really correct?) of gang members were overturned as a result, but nobody served time other than Perez. I can't find the interview transcripts online anymore and unfortunately I did not download them at the time; we should find them and put a link here.
- However -- Rampart probably deserves its own page. It was huge news in Los Angeles, and the word "Rampart" is still synonymous with police corruption for many. There are other CRASH units, and this article probably should have more to say about them, and link to a separate page on the Rampart scandal.--csloat 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] How?
How can this be non-NPOV? It doesn't provide enough information to even get close to having an opinon. It's a stub.
- Agreed. It should be removed. We also shouldn't have the sentence in there about information to be added "shortly" (it's been there for at least a year now I think).--csloat 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I put a NPOV flAG ON THIS ARTICLE BECAUSR OF THE RACIAL DISCIMINATION CLAIM MADE ABOUT OPPERATION HAMMER. ONLY WARRANT SUSPECTS WERE ARRESTED, THEREFORE RACIAL PROFILING COULD NOT HAVE OCCURED. ONLY PEOPLE WITH OPEN WARRANTS WERE ARRESTED.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.193.168 (talk • contribs) 13:04, November 6, 2006 (UTC).
- The section you're referring to was a shortened form of the main article which had that sentence about it being racist. I added a line about the other side of the argument to give it some neutrality. Slof 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reorganizing this page
I grew up in Los Angeles, and my comments concerning the LAPD are, well, let us say that I am able to contain my enthusiasm concerning their operations. Nonetheless, the gamg problem in Los Angeles is well out of control, and as a response to that problem putting in a CRASH was not out of line. How about we do this: We break this article into two pieces. The first piece concerns the CRASH units themselves, purpose, authority to operate, objectives, etc. In this piece we simply mention that there have been problems in execution. The second piece concerns the Rampart scandal itself. Here, we can discuss Parks and his attempts to quash investigation of the scandal, we can discuss Perez, we can discuss the planting of evidence, etc., etc., etc. Comments? (10:16, 25 September 2005 IP 24.64.112.236)
- I definitely agree; I even think Rampart CRASH should have its own page with just a mention here. They must have some sort of PR brochure that could be helpful as a starting point - a basic description of what they do would be nice. Then a separate Rampart CRASH or something would do the trick for covering the scandal.--csloat 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] No information here...
This article is bare bones. I don't know what you NPOV guys are complaining about... there's nothing here to even criticize. More of this article needs to be written before anybody can posit an opinion.
With that said, reading this article tells me pretty much nothing, which is why I bothered to leave a comment in the first place. So one corrupt cop was arrested for stealing coccaine? This constitutes an entire scandal involving 70 officers? Details, please. Lantoka 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] confusing
That third paragraph in the introduction is rather confusing - might need to be reworded a bit. -William 10/29/06 15:09 CST
- I can see what you're talking about; I was trying to add information about its internal aftermath, but information about it was scare or nondescript.
I'll work on the paragraph so it does not look so confusing.I tried to fix the paragraph so that it is not so jumbled. Slof 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
